WBL comes in many guises and it is a methodology that can be suited to different situations at different educational levels. Burns and Chisholm (2003, p.180) suggest there are four potential models defining a WBL programme.
Model 1 – based on a programme of study totally associated with activities in the workplace. An example of this is the DProf in the Faculty of Science and Technology at Anglia Ruskin University. Through a series of papers and a thesis, students will be expected to develop new knowledge but within the field of professional practice. ‘In doing so they can make a significant contribution to the advancement of their profession’ (ARU, 2012a).
A model totally associated with activities in the workplace presents several challenges, not least how academic recognition is given for the work-based activities. At the doctoral level, new knowledge should be generated and in a true work-based course should benefit the work organisation as well as the employees (students) field of professional practice. The workplace qualification sees mode 1 knowledge being applied as mode 2 knowledge in the workplace. A drawback of this work-based qualification is that there needs to be a learning agreement in place, which recognises the involvement of the company, the academic provider and the student.
Model 2 – The course may be a combination of taught modules and workplace activity. An example of this is the FdSc Construction qualification at Anglia Ruskin University. The course, as Burns and Chisholm (2003, p.180) emphasise sees ‘the development of tacit knowledge based on the
interpretation of explicit knowledge from the taught modules with experience gained from work-based activity’. This occurs through specific WBL and work related learning modules. The main drawback of this approach is around the timeliness of integration. Ideally students would apply the knowledge learnt in
an academic setting soon after it has taken place, however this is not always the case.
Model 3 – Activity in the workplace is recognised using this model. An example of this is the FdSc Construction Site Management course at Anglia Ruskin University developed in conjunction with the National Construction College. The qualification allows for recognition of accredited prior experiential learning (APEL) and involves both explicit and tacit knowledge to be developed through academic and work-based activity. The APEL process can be time-consuming and the employee may find it difficult to fully articulate their experience and how relevant it is in an academic setting. Guidance and support from the academic institution is vital in ensuring the employee’s knowledge is not only relevant but also at the appropriate level.
Model 4 – This model sees the course structure adapted to suit the needs of students. This might be referred to as negotiated learning and usually involves core studies which all students take alongside their individual work-based projects. An example of this approach is given by Hatfield (2006, p.140) with her Practice Skills Development Modules, which use a ‘pick and mix skills escalator approach from a bank of existing skills to inform module content and learning outcomes’ (ibid). In designing a skill, the learner establishes the underpinning knowledge required to undertake the skill then identify criteria against which achievement of the skill could be measured. It is important that the learner when designing the skill indicates in the underpinning knowledge and performance criteria statements, the level at which the skill is being achieved. The learner also evaluates their experience of workplace skill development (Hatfield, 2006).
The use of skills which Hatfield (2006, p.142) describes as an ‘aspect of the notion of competence’ are key in the assessment of NVQs. Chapter 2
describes the skills and competencies needed for construction management in the context of National Occupational Standards (NOS). This is discussed in more detail later in this chapter in the context of the QAA Subject Benchmark
Statements, which are used for an honours degree in construction management.
The four models described by Burns and Chisholm (2003) can coexist within one HE institution, which offers undergraduate, postgraduate and research degrees. The models offer different structures, which can be used at different stages of an employee's career. Flexible delivery models of WBL can address social inclusion which supports the lifelong learning agenda associated with giving access to HE for underrepresented groups (Burns and Chisholm, 2003, p.182).
Brown and Harte (2006) identify two models of WBL that can be used to differentiate between level, ability and performance requirements of different sections of the nursing profession. The first model (known as affirmative) is used as part of a foundation degree to educate unqualified staff to become Assistant Practitioners. The model affirms through assessment opportunities that a series of pre-determined skills and competencies have been achieved. The assessment opportunities ensure that the learning, critical reflection and an individual’s capability are measured.
The second model (known as transformative) supports the professional development of senior nurses by allowing them to identify new learning
opportunities (not pre-determined by the learning provider, therefore individual), which can lead to high levels of decision-making. There is no timeframe on the use of this model; instead agreement is reached between the learner and employer. This model has similarity with Burns and Chisholm (2003) fourth model and the ‘pick and mix skills escalator approach’ suggested by Hatfield (2006). The learning is personal, developmental and as Burns and Chisholm imply, is carried out in negotiation with the learner.
‘A key aspect of WBL is the attempt to build linkages between theory and practice …’ (Glew and Elsworth, 2010, p.2) but to do so needs an
understanding of the fundamental building blocks that form its construction. Raelin (1997, p.564) feels that there are two key aspects to the process of
WBL, ‘theory and practice modes of learning, explicit and tacit forms of knowledge.’ Raelin went onto develop a WBL model linking the types of knowledge with the forms of learning and introducing a level of activity (individual and collective) to the debate. At an individual level, the model is based on the work of Kolb (1984) and his learning style inventory and at a collective level; it is based on the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) and their community of practice research. A copy of the Raelin’s model is reproduced in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Raelin’s model of WBL (Source: Raelin, 1997, p.573)
Raelin (1997, p.573) believes that to achieve ‘proficiency and criticalness to their learning’ each of the eight types of learning (individual level:
conceptualization, experimentation, experience, reflection; collective level: applied science, action learning, community of practice, action science) needs to be present if that learning is to take place either by oneself or collectively with others. Reflective activity appears to be shown in the model only at an
individual level. For reflection to be truly effective in a work-based context it needs to include others involved in the activity or affected by the activities
outcomes. Action learning, defined by Grey (1999, p.2) as ‘the learning that arises from the process rather than (though inextricably linked to) the solution to an actual problem’, offers the potential not only for the individual to review their own performance but also for others to provide constructive feedback. The formation of ‘learning teams or action learning sets’ (Raelin, 2007, p.569) within the workplace can facilitate the process.
The model also highlights community of practice as another potential area where reflective activity can enhance performance. Raelin (1997) sees a community of practice as a gathering of like-minded individuals with a common purpose, relying on each other for support. This community of practice can go beyond a work environment as students involved in WBL can engage as a group with a university’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), social media or meet in person to share their experiences.
Raelin’s model does not show how workplace learning occurs in practice. It is more of a theoretical approach than the application-based models supported by Burns and Chisholm (2003), and Brown and Harte (2006). Raelin’s model does explore the link between theory and practice and make a brief reference to level, a concept at the heart of Burns and Chisholm’s four models. The
concepts highlighted by Raelin will be discussed later in the chapter in relation to the characteristics of a WBL curriculum identified by Margaryan (2008) and Boud and Solomon (2001).
There has been a paradigm shift away from the traditional approach of formal education with the teaching of conceptual knowledge (knowing-what and
knowing-why) to a more informal setting of the workplace with the acquisition of procedural knowledge (knowing-how and knowing-where) (Margaryan, 2008, p.12). Traditionally a formal setting would be associated with an education course at college or university, such as a degree in construction management. This would usually be delivered in the classroom, facilitated by a tutor, with a set structure to the discovery of knowing-what and knowing-why. The informal setting of the workplace would centre on the individual’s social group and their interaction with work colleagues. In addition to the four types of knowledge
(stated above), Margaryan (2008, p.13) identifies four key characteristics of WBL, which indicate that:
it must be based on real world work-based problems,
the emphasis of WBL is on project teams,
it should be focussed on the individual, and
it should be focussed on the process as well as the output.
Margaryan (2008, p.13)
These key characteristics focus on the informal setting of the workplace. There is no mention of third party involvement (with HE institutions) and little reference to other forms of knowledge other than work-based. Margaryan’s
characteristics appear inward looking rather than outward facing and only offer one view of WBL. On the other hand, Boud and Solomon (2001) indicate that WBL programmes share six characteristics along a continuum of HE and employer interaction. At one end of the spectrum, there is limited engagement with the workplace, yet at the other end there is substantial employer
engagement, leading to new ‘pedagogies for learning’ (Boud and Solomon, 2001, p.4).
The six characteristics identified by Boud and Solomon (2001) are:
in WBL a relationship exists between an education institution and an employer,
work-based projects are being used,
in WBL, learners are treated as individuals,
the emphasise is that a WBL programme centres on the curriculum,
in WBL, the learners starting point with regard to current competencies should be examined, and
learning outcomes are important in a WBL course.
There is commonality between the two sets of characteristics (Margaryan, 2008; Boud and Solomon, 2001) leading to the development of the researcher’s five key themes of a WBL curriculum, which will be analysed in relation to the model of WBL, proposed by Raelin (1997). These five themes include:
1. Relevance of the curriculum in meeting student/employer needs using